xgettext (Re: replication of stuff in /usr/gnu)

[Garrett D'Amore]

This whole debate underscores for me a point that I think is often 
overlooked.

I think it is very important to ensure that it remain possible to build 
a distro that is basically operation, but remains entirely free of GPL 
licensed code.   (Otherwise why bother with CDDL at all?  Just go GPLv2 
or v3 everywhere...  yech.)

I realize that some extras need to be GPL for one reason or another... 
the GNU toolchain, and Gnome/JDS are good examples.  But to date, none 
of those bits of software are *critical* to the system.... I could quite 
happily build an environment today that was completely clear and free of 
GPL code... blackbox for a window manager (MIT license), stock X11, w3m 
browser (or Opera if I want closed source) ... I think firefox may even 
support pure Xlib, etc.

The important part is no parts of my kernel or critical userland 
components are GPL.

I'd really really like it to remain this way.

It makes it far easier to do things like build embedded appliances with 
some CDDL code and some proprietary code, etc.

    -- Garrett

Darren.Reed at Sun.COM wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
>> Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com> wrote:
>>
>>  
>>
>>> This is what the GPLv2 says:
>>>
>>> 9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
>>>   of the General Public License from time to time.  Such new versions
>>>   will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in
>>>   detail to address new problems or concerns.
>>>
>>>   Each version is given a distinguishing version number.  If the
>>>   Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to
>>>   it and "any later version", you have the option of following the
>>>   terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version
>>>   published by the Free Software Foundation.  If the Program does not
>>>   specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version
>>>   ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
>>>
>>> "..., you have the option of following the terms and conditions either
>>> of that version or of any later version..."
>>>
>>> I think that's pretty darn clear, to lawyers and non-lawyers alike.
>>>
>>> Put another way, why would Sun Legal have approved *any* GPLv2 programs
>>> for use and/or distribution by Sun in Sun products, in development,
>>> etcetera, if item (9) said something more like "..., future versions
>>> automatically supercede earlier versions..."???
>>>   
>>
>> Te problem is that the FSF changes the file to read
>> "...at version 3 or later..."
>>  
>>
>
> Precisely.
>
> Darren
>